Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

An Alaska hunter challenged a state regulation that allocates permits for hunting Kodiak brown bears, with at least 60% reserved for Alaska residents and no more than 40% for nonresidents, who must generally hunt with a professional guide. The hunter argued that this allocation grants nonresidents a special privilege in violation of the Alaska Constitution’s principle of equal access to fish and game and that it fails to manage resources for the maximum benefit of Alaskans.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, upheld the regulation, concluding that it did not grant an exclusive right to nonresidents and that the allocation system was within permissible bounds. The court found that the regulation did not exclude residents from hunting and that the allocation balanced various interests, including economic benefits and conservation.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that the regulation did not violate the equal access clauses of the Alaska Constitution. It reasoned that treating residents and nonresidents differently does not, in itself, violate the constitution, and that the regulation did not grant nonresidents an unconstitutional special privilege. The court also found that the state could consider economic benefits when managing wildlife resources and that the Board of Game had taken a hard look at the relevant factors, including conservation and economic benefits, when establishing the permit system. Thus, the regulation was consistent with the constitutional duty to manage resources for the maximum benefit of Alaskans. View "Cassell v. State of Alaska, Department of Fish & Game" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization challenged the United States Forest Service's approval of a forest thinning project in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. The project aimed to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health through various treatments, including tree thinning and prescribed burns. The organization argued that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not reopening the public comment period after significant changes were made to the project following a wildfire, and by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and the cumulative effects of the project.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service, finding that the agency had complied with NEPA requirements. The court held that the Forest Service was not required to repeat the public comment process and that the Environmental Assessment (EA) considered a reasonable range of alternatives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the Forest Service was not required to repeat the public comment process because the changes made to the project did not pose new environmental questions or render the public's comments on the Draft EA irrelevant. The court also found that the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives and that the use of condition-based management did not inherently violate NEPA.However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding the cumulative effects analysis. The Ninth Circuit held that the EA's discussion of cumulative effects was insufficient because it did not consider the cumulative effects of the Twisp Restoration Project in combination with the Midnight Restoration Project, which was originally part of the same project. The court remanded the case for the district court to order the Forest Service to remedy the deficiencies in the EA and determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. View "North Cascades Conservation Council v. Forest Service" on Justia Law

A solar energy company, Harvey Solar I, L.L.C., applied to the Ohio Power Siting Board for a certificate to construct a solar-powered electric-generation facility in Licking County, Ohio. The project faced opposition from a local citizens group, Save Hartford Twp., L.L.C., and 11 nearby residents, who raised concerns about the environmental and economic impacts of the project, including visual impacts, flooding, wildlife disruption, noise, water quality, and glare.The Ohio Power Siting Board reviewed the application and conducted an evidentiary hearing. The board staff investigated the potential impacts and recommended approval with conditions. The board ultimately granted the certificate, subject to 39 conditions, including requirements for visual screening, floodplain coordination, wildlife impact mitigation, noise control, and stormwater management.The residents appealed the board's decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing that the board failed to properly evaluate the project's adverse impacts and that Harvey Solar did not provide sufficient information as required by the board's rules. They contended that the board's decision was unlawful and unreasonable.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that the board had acted within its statutory authority and had not violated any applicable laws or regulations. The court determined that the board had sufficient evidence to make the required determinations under R.C. 4906.10(A) and that the conditions imposed on the certificate were reasonable and appropriate. The court affirmed the board's order granting the certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the solar facility. View "In re Application of Harvey Solar I, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves the County of San Diego's adoption of thresholds of significance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to streamline the evaluation of transportation-related environmental effects for land-use development projects. The County adopted two specific thresholds: one for "infill" projects within unincorporated villages and another for projects generating fewer than 110 automobile trips per day. Plaintiffs, two environmental groups, challenged these thresholds, arguing they were not supported by substantial evidence and did not comply with CEQA requirements.The Superior Court of San Diego County ruled in favor of the County, finding that the infill threshold was consistent with CEQA and that the small project threshold was justified by substantial evidence, as it aligned with recommendations from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the County's infill threshold was not supported by substantial evidence, as it relied on unsubstantiated assumptions that infill development would generally result in insignificant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts. The court found that the County failed to provide evidence showing that development in designated infill areas would typically generate VMT below the County average.Similarly, the court found that the small project threshold lacked substantial evidentiary support. The County had adopted OPR's recommendation without providing evidence that projects generating fewer than 110 trips per day would have a less-than-significant transportation impact in San Diego County.The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandate, requiring the County to comply with CEQA by providing substantial evidence to support the adopted thresholds. View "Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

The case involves the Center for Biological Diversity challenging the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of Colorado's revised implementation plan for ambient air quality standards. Colorado revised its plan in 2019, changing the wording of a permit requirement for new emission sources and adding language to the definition of a key threshold for evaluating compliance. The Center argued that the revisions would prevent regulators from blocking construction of new sources that generate excessive emissions and allow regulators to disregard emissions during drilling, fracking, and well completion.The EPA approved Colorado's revisions, leading the Center to file a petition for review. The State of Colorado intervened to defend the revisions. The Center contended that the revised permit requirement and the new definition of "commencement of operation" would undermine air quality standards.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected the Center's first challenge, concluding that the Center had not shown an effect from the revised wording in the permit requirement. However, the court agreed with the Center on the second challenge, finding that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to address the potential emissions during drilling, fracking, and well completion. The court held that the EPA did not independently assess whether the revised definition created a substantive change and remanded the case to the EPA for further explanation without vacating the EPA's prior approval of the revised definition. The court denied the petition for review regarding the revised permit requirement but granted it concerning the revised definition of "commencement of operation." View "Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA" on Justia Law

Two environmental organizations challenged a July 2020 Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by Wildlife Services, an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The EA and FONSI authorized a predator damage and conflict management program in Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas in Nevada. The plaintiffs argued that the program violated the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Wildlife Services. The court concluded that predator control in Wilderness Areas to support pre-existing grazing operations was permissible under the Wilderness Act. The court also found that the agency's statewide analysis of the environmental impacts was reasonable and that the agency had adequately considered the potential impacts on public health, Wilderness Areas, and the scientific uncertainty regarding lethal predator damage management (PDM).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the Wilderness Act claim, holding that lethal PDM is permissible in Wilderness Areas when conducted in support of pre-existing grazing operations. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment on the NEPA claim. The court found that the EA failed to take the required "hard look" at the environmental impacts, particularly regarding the geographic scope of the PDM program, the potential impacts on public health, the unique characteristics of Wilderness Areas, and the scientific uncertainty surrounding lethal PDM. The court remanded the case to the district court to direct the agency to reconsider whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required and to produce either a revised EA or an EIS. View "WILDEARTH GUARDIANS V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION WILDLIFE SERVICES" on Justia Law

The Alaska LNG Project sought authorization from the Department of Energy to export up to twenty million metric tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year for thirty years. The Department initially authorized the Project to export LNG to free-trade countries in 2014 and later to non-free trade countries in 2015, subject to environmental review. In 2023, the Department issued a final order approving the Project’s export application, concluding that the approval was consistent with the public interest despite uncertainties regarding environmental impacts.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) had previously authorized the construction and operation of the Project’s facilities, including an 800-mile pipeline and associated infrastructure, after preparing an extensive environmental impact statement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld FERC’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in Center for Biological Diversity v. FERC. The Department of Energy adopted FERC’s impact statement and issued its own supplemental environmental impact statement in response to Executive Order 13990.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the Department of Energy’s final order. The court found that the Department had properly adopted FERC’s environmental impact statement and complied with NEPA. The court also upheld the Department’s finding of substantial uncertainty regarding the magnitude of environmental impacts, particularly greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts, associated with the Project’s exports. The court concluded that the impacts of downstream emissions in foreign countries were not reasonably foreseeable and that the Department’s analysis was supported by substantial evidence.The court denied the petitions for review, affirming the Department of Energy’s authorization for the Alaska LNG Project to export LNG. View "Sierra Club v. DOE" on Justia Law

Steven Gomes filed a lawsuit to invalidate ordinances regulating groundwater use in Mendocino, adopted by the Mendocino City Community Services District (the district). The district argued that Gomes’s claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior case, Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist. (2019) (Gomes I), which challenged the district’s groundwater management program. The trial court found the ordinances contained an invalid attorney’s fee provision but rejected Gomes’s other claims.In Gomes I, the trial court denied Gomes’s petition challenging the district’s 2007 groundwater measures, but the judgment was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found the district had authority to limit groundwater extraction and that the 2007 measures were invalid due to non-compliance with statutory procedures. The district subsequently adopted new ordinances in 2020, which Gomes challenged in the present case.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. Gomes argued the ordinances imposed fees for groundwater extraction that required voter approval, which the district did not obtain. The court concluded that the claim was not barred by Gomes I, as it involved different ordinances and provisions. The court held that the fees imposed by the district were not for the extraction of groundwater and thus did not require voter approval under section 10710. The judgment was affirmed, except for the invalid attorney’s fee provision. View "Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist." on Justia Law

Griffith Foods International Inc. and Sterigenics U.S. operated a medical supply sterilization plant in Willowbrook, Illinois, emitting ethylene oxide (EtO) over 35 years. In 2018, a report linked these emissions to high cancer rates in the area, leading to over 800 lawsuits against the companies. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies knowingly emitted dangerous levels of EtO, causing various illnesses, including cancer.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois handled the insurance dispute between Griffith, Sterigenics, and National Union Fire Insurance Company. Griffith and Sterigenics sought a declaration that National Union had a duty to defend them under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies. The district court ruled in favor of Griffith and Sterigenics, determining that the pollution exclusion in the CGL policies did not apply because the emissions were authorized by a permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court focused on whether the pollution exclusion in the CGL policies applied to the emissions of EtO. The court noted that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms interpreted the pollution exclusion to apply to traditional environmental pollution. However, an Illinois appellate court decision in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp. suggested that emissions authorized by a regulatory permit might not constitute traditional environmental pollution.Given the conflicting interpretations and the significant implications for the insurance industry, the Seventh Circuit decided to certify the question to the Illinois Supreme Court. The court sought clarification on the relevance of a permit or regulation authorizing emissions in assessing the application of a pollution exclusion within a standard-form CGL policy. View "Sterigenics U.S., LLC v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg" on Justia Law

Griffith Foods International and Sterigenics U.S. operated a medical supply sterilization plant in Willowbrook, Illinois, emitting ethylene oxide (EtO) over a 35-year period. In 2018, a report revealed high cancer rates in Willowbrook, allegedly due to these emissions. Griffith and Sterigenics faced over 800 lawsuits from residents claiming bodily injuries, including cancer, caused by the emissions. Griffith had obtained permits from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) for the plant's operation, which included EtO emissions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the case. Griffith and Sterigenics sought declarations that National Union Fire Insurance Company had a duty to defend them under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies. The district court ruled in favor of Griffith and Sterigenics, determining that the pollution exclusion in the CGL policies did not apply because the emissions were authorized by IEPA permits. The court relied on the Illinois appellate decision in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., which found ambiguity in the pollution exclusion when emissions were permitted by regulatory authorities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged the importance of the pollution exclusion in CGL policies and the precedent set by the Illinois Supreme Court in American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms. The Seventh Circuit noted the conflicting interpretations between Koloms and Imperial Marble regarding the scope of the pollution exclusion. Given the significant implications for Illinois law and the insurance industry, the Seventh Circuit decided to certify the question to the Illinois Supreme Court to determine the relevance of regulatory permits in applying the pollution exclusion in CGL policies. View "Griffith Foods International Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg" on Justia Law